California Politicians Are Finding “Common Ground On Imposing Fees On Electric Cars”

JUL 26 2015 BY JAY COLE 80

California Plug-In Owners Pay Soon Face Annual "Fair Use" Fee For Their Vehicles

California Plug-In Owners Pay Soon Face Annual “Fair Use” Fee For Their Vehicles

Years of worrying about traffic congestion, spending on widening roads, adding infrastructure and focusing on commercial shipping in California – over doing things like actually repairing roads and bridges looks to have finally come home to roost in the Golden State.

The repairs bills are mounting, and there is currently a $5.7 billion annual funding gap between the state’s road repair budget and the revenue coming in via the gas tax.

When It Comes To California Incentives: One Hand Giveth...On One May Soon Taketh Away

When It Comes To California Incentives: One Hand Giveth…While One May Soon Taketh Away

Potentially caught up in this issue is the electric car, as a new proposition that would increase the gas tax, may also put a fee on plug-ins at the same time.

“We’re in such a desperate need for funding. We’ve just come through the worst recession any of us have been able to see, and there wasn’t any funding. That’s costing us, because for every dollar we didn’t spend, now it’s costing us $9 to fix.” – Assemblyman Jim Frazier, chairman of the Assembly’s transportation committee (via Bloomberg)

The gas tax in California today stands at almost 49 cents – one of the highest levels in the country, but the slowdown in the economy and state’s several successful campaigns to get motorists to switch to more fuel efficient hybrids and electric cars, has now been blamed for the shortfall.

California’s DoT says that 564 bridges are currently distressed, and that 41 percent of the state’s 50,000+ miles of highway also require maintenance or are in distress.    The department says it needs about $8 billion per year going forward to repair the roads, but the gas tax will only being in about $2.3 billion this year.

Plans ranging from increasing the tax by 12 cents, to diverting $3 billion from California’s cap-and-trade market, have been suggested.

California A Major Buyer Of Ford's Plug-In Hybrids

California Has Been A Major Buyer Of Ford’s Plug-In Hybrids

For us, the most interesting suggestion gaining traction is putting fees on the 150,000-odd electrified vehicles in operation in California.  Bloomberg reports the following on the movement:

“Senate Republican Minority Leader Bob Huff said there may be an appetite by members of his party to support indexing the gas tax to inflation. He also said he could see common ground on imposing fees on electric cars or those not paying their fair share.”

Earlier suggestions on taxing electric vehicles based on miles driven ultimately proved too difficult to find “common ground” on.

Most recently in April, the state with the 2nd highest EV adoption (after California) – Georgia put a $200 annual road use fee in place – which makes the tax burden of a plug-in roughly equal to a SUV in that state.  Such a program in California could generate as much as $50,000,000 in new revenue.

There is no question that California needs a lot more money to support its transportation system, but is now the time to start equalizing electric vehicle’s fair road use with the common car?  It might just be.

Bloomberg, Hat tip to sven!

Categories: General


Leave a Reply

80 Comments on "California Politicians Are Finding “Common Ground On Imposing Fees On Electric Cars”"

newest oldest most voted

Increase the Gasoline and Diesel Tax, AND create a uniform vehicle fee scale based on either weight (including hauling cargo for commercial use), or actual road use per anum.

That way, no one is specifically discriminating against EVs. Fossil fuel use is not rewarded, and heavy trucks pay for the road damage they cause.

Agree, except for miles driven bc enforcing that would prob require annual inspections. But weight fee + gas tax gives EVs a little break (on the gas) but hits them fairly for being generally heavier for their class.

Or you give them your odometer reading, they deduct from the previous reading and you pay a per-mile cost for the difference.

It’s actually very easy.

Once this mess finally gets sorted so it’s determined that people are going to pay by odometer reading, we’ll end up with standardization to make odometer reading simple, and also more security required on odometers to make them harder to modify.

an odometer-based scheme is a terrible idea. the state shouldn’t be able to tax you for out of state driving, so you would have to deduct for out of state driving and then pay only for the number of miles driven in-state. there is no way that i would be willing to divulge to the government where i am driving.

a flat fee based on an assumed driving profile would make more sense.

i do, however, think that the tax on gasoline does need to increase significantly; this would drive people to seek more fuel efficient cars. good luck with the politics of that, though…republicans would have a field day running against any politician that called for higher taxes. the problem is that, with all of the anti-tax rhetoric tossed around by the republicans, people have come to think that stuff is free. the reality is that when you cut one tax, the government is going to raise some other fee, or in places like ferguson, mo, the police turn into revenue agents (often performing this “revenue agent” role in a racially biased manner).

Then the state also needs a bureaucracy to manage and audit.

So the Republican idea is to create BIGGER government.
Is this party the Laughing Stock to the world or what.

Just Raise the Damn Gas Tax, and Vote out of office these Idiots.

a flat fee doesn’t require a bureaucracy since they would already have record of cars that are BEVs. so generation of fees would be automatic. in illinois, for example, BEVs get deeply discounted registration fees.

“no comment” said:

“…an odometer-based scheme is a terrible idea. the state shouldn’t be able to tax you for out of state driving…”

There is no idea so good that someone can’t try to find a way to make it look bad. The only question here is whether “no comment” actually thinks what he’s saying has some merit, or whether he’s just trolling again.

All states except Hawaii will have some amount of out-of-state driving on their roads, so that should average out to some extent. What’s important isn’t to obsessively track which state every last mile is driven in, but to find a way to assess road use taxes which is reasonably fair and results in sufficient revenue for the state.

Furthermore, heavy freight trucks do 90% of the damage to roads, highways, and bridges. Perhaps it makes sense to track which states those trucks drive in, especially for trucks on regular interstate routes; perhaps that is already tracked. It may well be worth the trouble to track that, whereas it’s probably not worth it to track passenger vehicles.

No different to all the people who commute across state lines and buy their gas in whichever state has lower gas taxes. Or going on a trip through multiple states and only buying in gas in some of them. And as an example of the current system’s limitations, last month we drove our Volt from Maine to Pittsburgh and back, and our fill-ups were in CT, MA and PA. NH and NY got no gas tax from us, and the fuel taxes paid to the various states were not in proportion to miles driven in those states.

Unless you want to use GPS logging like commercial drivers do, you’re bound to have an imperfect system. Fuel taxes suck, have always sucked and fixed user fees suck harder.

An odometer-based system at least would shift to a system that makes people for travel using something that measures travel.

The point on using odometer readings is that it all comes out in the wash – you are taxed in your state based on your odometer reading, and I’m taxed on my odometer reading in my state. Odds are that the mileage I drove in an adjacent state is about the same that one or more drivers from those adjacent states had driven in my state. No invasion of privacy, and the money for miles driven is collected.

Or, you can make an annual odometer reading a Federal supplement to the Federal portion of the gas tax – then it doesn’t matter where you drove. That Federal money is sent to each state’s repair funds.

“…more security required on odometers to make them harder to modify.”

It’s already a felony to modify an odometer reading. This ain’t broke, and it doesn’t need to be fixed.

What Sacramento is forgetting is that by adopting a flat fee plan like Georgia that charges equivalent to an SUV, most electric cars drive a lot less on California roads than gas cars due to their limited range. Many Leased Leafs came back at end of a 2 year lease with less than 10k miles. At .46 / gal tax and an average fuel economy around 32 mpg. For 200.00 / .46 = 400 rough × 32 miles =12,800 miles in equivalent fuel tax per year. If you drive less than 12,800 / year you would pay more in the alternative gas tax for ev’s than gas cars pay. Should allow you to report mileage and pay per mile for those who drive significantly less miles Tesla’s are a completely diff animal due to cost and range they put a lot more annual miles on the road than a Leaf the truth be told.

“…except for miles driven bc enforcing that would prob require annual inspections.”

Doesn’t California require annual inspections of all vehicles? For those States which do, all that would be necessary is adding an odometer reading to the inspection checklist.

No… most consumer vehicles get smog inspection every 2 years.

Most states require annual safety inspections, where they check tire wear, suspension, headlights and taillights, etc. That is when the state would get the odo reading.

Also might be national law that anytine a vehicle is in for repair or even an oil change, the vin and odm readings are taken.

“Increase the Gasoline and Diesel Tax…”

Political suicide?

Not even the democrats will do it.

Current California Gasoline tax is 60.75¢/gal, with diesel @ 63.78¢/gal.
Remove the Federal tax of 18.4 gas ad 2.4 diesel and you have 42.35 gas & 39.38 diesel.
California taxes diesel fuel use in big trucks at a lower rate.

RU kidding? They have ruled Calif for over 10 years, do you really think Republicans in the minority are passing all the new taxes? The sky is the limit. They are still in power and have increased taxes how many times in last 10 years. No political suicide here.

Keep it simple, increase the Petrol and Diesel Tax, No road user fees on EV’s until 2020

This is a scam. California recieves twice as much from the current gas tax than they spend on roads. They take the other half and give it to the general fund. This entire aurgument is based on a false premise.

This is nothing more than a money grab by the politicians on both sides of the isle. They are liars that lead you to believe there is not enough money. If you notice the article there is no were that says that the gas tax isn’t enough to fix the roads it only says that there is a lack of funding. The lack of funding is from using the gas tax revenues for other programs. Check the numbers. And by the way it is not a gas tax it is a fee. If they raise the tax the people would have to vote on it.

^^^ That

I am OK with the concept of EVs paying flat fee to cover infrastructure maintenance, but it needs to be specifically set aside to CalTrans, and not simply be poured back into the general fund.

One 18 wheeler can do as much damage to the road as roughly one thousand cars.

Are they paying one thousand times more in fees?

No because they’re the backbone of Murica

Nick, see my response to your other comment below. Interstate 18 wheelers do pay a very significant amount of user fees for the road damage that they cause.

Yes, they do pay a lot in fees. But they don’t pay enough to be their fair share of the damage done.

Hmmm… apparently I was lowballing it when I said that heavy freight trucks do 90% of the damage to roads, highways and bridges.

I know it’s been studied and quantified, but 99% of road damage (from your link) seems like it’s way off. I say this solely from personal observation of the frequency of road repaving projects on three parallel highways that run from NYC to Long Island: two are parkways that only allows passenger cars, and the third is an expressway that allows trucks and commercial traffic (a very large percentage of traffic since it is the only highway to Long Island that allows trucks). If trucks cause 99% of the road damage, then the expressway would wear out and need repaving much more frequently than the parkways, but I haven’t observed that. It seems like road salt and the winter freeze/thaw cycle cause enough road damage by their own to require repaving every few years.

How does this even apply to a PHEV that also pays a gas tax. This hardly seems fair as EV verses gas usage among PHEVs varies car to car yet they will all pay a flat fee.

In GA they passed the new law charging $200 for EVs. We got a notice in the mail for registration renewal for our Camry hybrid and there was the $200 fee! I had luckily heard on local NPR the next morning that it was an “accident” and they had “accidentally” mailed out the $200 fee to all regular hybrids and PHEVs. Needless to say we didn’t have to pay.

We do have a Volt as well and after scouring the law I found that PHEVs like the Volt will not have to pay the $200 fee IF they forgo getting the Alternative Fuel Vehicle tag which allows you to use carpool. To go that route you have to pay extra for the special tag AND the $200 fee as if it was an EV. I guess we’re not getting the tag next renewal time.

Regressive Republican Laws, shock.

What an EV does:

ENERGY INDEPENDENCE, from the Saudi and Canadian polluters.
American Jobs, at American Utilities.
Reduces US money making Saudi Rich, the funders of the 9/11 Terrorists.
Cleaner American Air, smarter citizens.
And a step toward fixing global warming.

I have never been more DISGUSTED with the Republican Party than today.

I apologize to AMERICA for Ever Voting Republican.

I hear ya. The first time I voted was for Reagan in 1980. Ah the foolishness and stupidity of youth . . . .

WA has a EV fee that’s increasing to $150. It’s not a Republican state.

Politicians of all colors don’t want to fix the system.

Was also discussed in ME, but we don’t have any plug-in incentives, and have small numbers of plug-ins. (And currently we don’t have anything on the Registration that says a car is a plug-in hybrid).

Most of the radicalization in the middle east was caused by europe and the US.

EU because of laying borders where there where none before, therefore increasing social stress and supporting wrong leaders.

US because of financing terorists, to fight against russia (and now are fighting against US) and because of suporting military dicators, which increased social stress.

Those two factors EU and US and weak economy where the main reasons for terroist to rise. So please ask yourself who raised the terror!

Nailed it…I would also add the inability to separate religion and state.

“I have never been more DISGUSTED with the Republican Party than today.”

You seem to have your parties mixed up. CA is run by big-government liberals. Only a handful are Republicans. Most are Democrats. So you’re blaming all the R’s because a few liberal R’s might be going along with the D’s. That doesn’t really make sense.


Fees for electric cars… LOL

So if the 150,000 EVs all paid $1,000 per year, that would only contribute $150M to the $5.7B shortfall!

If I was them I wouldn’t spend too much time worrying about the small number of EVs that aren’t paying anything. Better to make the gas mobiles pay their fair share, at least that will actually provide the needed funds.

That’s the elephant in the room. The trucking lobby is strong, but the facts show they don’t come close to paying for their road destruction.

100% correct.

The setup where heavy freight trucks don’t pay their fair share of road use taxes essentially means taxpayers subsidize use of energy-wasting, inefficient Interstate freight trucking instead of more efficient, more cost-effective freight trains.

If we require that heavy trucks convert to fuel cells, they will use hydrogen.

Then they will do less road damage, because that would make them lighter.

I don’t ever see anything mentioned about a “road tax” when charging at one of the multitude of state sponsored charging sites….which I don’t go to anyways…. Oh dear…did I just open up one of those boxes?

Now is not the time to penalize EVs. Gas cars outnumber EVs by about 10,000 to 1. Just raise the gas tax. Penalize the polluters and reward the clean cars.

Yeah. It’s insane to subsidize EVs with one hand, and with the other hand impose additional taxes on them.

As has been said, a surcharge tax on the tiny number of PEVs currently on the roads isn’t going to make a significant impact on any shortfall in taxes. I can understand why those politicians who are politically motivated to hate “green tech” and EVs would support an EV surcharge, but I am stunned that anyone on the other side of the isle would agree to such a counter-productive tax measure.

It’s not insane to go a subsidy in one area but not subsidize in another area.

PEVs are expensive, so if you prefer people to buy them instead of conventional cars you can have a price subsidy.
But just because there’s a purchase subsidy, it doesn’t mean you also want to give people free road use (lower the cost of driving more miles), free parking (encourage driving a car into a city instead of using a park-and-ride), or free charging (encourage wasteful energy use).

Subsidies should always be done carefully. Road pricing is not an area where electric vehicles should have any significant subsidies. If there would be any subsidy it would be on the assumption that future battery technology will be lighter, so you could price it as if it were a slightly lighter vehicle.

EVs should pay at least a token user fee annually, not that it will amount to more than a rounding error in tax collections at this point. I like the idea of linking user fees to weight, since it is true that road damage is caused overwhelmingly by big rigs. Unfortunately, much of the damage is caused by rigs registered out of state, so I don’t know how a user fee would work in that case. That brings us back to gas/diesel taxes.

Since everyone benefits from highways, whether they drive or not, perhaps more of the repair budget should come from general revenues.

Nick said: “I like the idea of linking user fees to weight, since it is true that road damage is caused overwhelmingly by big rigs. Unfortunately, much of the damage is caused by rigs registered out of state, so I don’t know how a user fee would work in that case.” Interstate big rigs DO pay user fees for the road damage they cause. The federal government though the US DOT Federal Highway Administration regulates interstate travel and already has a system in place to apportion and collect user fees for large trucks that travel interstate. Big rigs over 26,000 lbs or having 3 or more axles that travel across state lines are required to have apportioned license plates and apportion state registration fees and state fuel taxes paid. The International Registration Plan (IRP) and International Fuel Tax Agreement (IFTA) are cooperative programs to collect and distribute registration and fuel tax revenue between member states and Canadian provinces in which the big rigs drive through. “The state’s registration fee for your apportioned plate will vary depending on your base state, gross vehicle weight, and states you wish to register. Typically the state fees for an 80,000 pound vehicle running all… Read more »

However, there aren’t many US states that have weight-mile charges.

States do have indirect weight charges on toll roads and bridges/tunnels since they charge toll by the number of axles. The greater the weight, the more axles a vehicle/trailer must have to be able to carry it. Near me, it costs a non-hybrid ICE car $14 cash (less with E-ZPass discount) to cross from NY to NJ on every bridge or tunnel, while it costs an 18 wheeler with 5 axles $95 to cross. By year end the toll will increase to $15 and $105 respectively. Sigh.

Likewise, the heavy weight of trucks contributes to their very low fuel economy of 4 to 6 miles per gallon, which in turn results in more fuel tax paid per mile since they burn much more fuel per mile.

Interesting info–I was not aware of these things. However, the fact remains that highway maintenance funds are insufficient to maintain our roads and highways. I believe the ratio of damage done by a big rig compared to an ordinary car is far greater than the ratio of fuel consumption between the two, so one could argue that the big rigs are subsidized by everyone else–big rigs might pay 2x to 4x more per mile in fuel taxes, but may be doing 200x to 400x more in damage (mostly compressive stress to roadways). In any event, a robust economy needs good infrastructure, and we need to find a way to pay for it.

The goal is to get more EVs on the road. This seems like it will do the opposite. Do it based upon weight, some EVs weigh more so may cause more wear. The weight of the vehicle seems like the fairest way since gas usage will continue to drop as more and more efficient models get on the road. This may also encourage more people to drive lighter vehicles and it will tie the ones doing the most wear and tear on the roads to the fee. This also means that trucks would pay far more but they also do the most damage.

One could also argue, at least in California, that EV drivers ALREADY pay higher fees to the state through the annual registration fee which is based on “vehicle cost.” Since pretty much ALL EVs have higher than typical ICE MSRP cost, their annual registration fees in California are already HIGHER than ICE vehicles and MUCH, MUCH higher than older, depreciated value ICE vehicles. Specifically on California’s love for the Tesla Model S, that car generates over $800 in registration fees for its initial year and even depreciated over 3 years, generates more than DOUBLE the typical ICE vehicle fees to the state.

Plus one

George Parrott said:

“…EV drivers ALREADY pay higher fees to the state through the annual registration fee which is based on ‘vehicle cost.’ Since pretty much ALL EVs have higher than typical ICE MSRP cost, their annual registration fees in California are already HIGHER than ICE vehicles…”

Well said, sir. That should be the final word on the subject. Sadly, it won’t be.

Give incentives from one hand, grab it back with the other.
Gasoline is way too much subsidized. Billions a year
Let users pay the real price of gas, and there will be enormous surplus.

They need to leave the EVs alone and concentrate on some other issues. One is speeders. Speeding is everywhere. All states need to concentrate on this problem. When I was younger fuzz busters were common. Not today not many tickets are being issued or there would be fuzz buster advertisement. Also overweight trucks are an issue. I see too many weigh stations closed when I am traveling. All states need road repair and will not increase the fuel tax. I hardly ever see semis being pulled over. However I do see a lot of speeding semis.

Gas tax should be per liter, not per gallon. Wean us off both fossil fuels and inch-pound units at the same time.

Two issues here:
1. Paying for sustained maintenance of road and highway infrastructure.
2. The public cost of emissions (GHGs and other toxic compounds) released into environment that effect health of all live for many decades info the future.

One tax can not address both issues, there needs to be clear and seperate policies to mediate risks and ensure suitable infrastructure is in place for the economy to remain strong.

Any toxics dumped today without oversight, will be costly to cleanup and remove in the future. Why not a fee based system based on the type and amount of toxics emitted to encourage moving to cleaner energy technologies?


I flat tax on EVs does not make sense. That is equivalent to a 30MPG car driving 12244 miles a year, But many smaller EV’s do not drive that many miles per year, so they are being penalized just because they have an EV.

If you want to go flat, go flat for everyone. If you want it based on weight and miles driven, make it so for everyone.

“Earlier suggestions on taxing electric vehicles based on miles driven ultimately proved too difficult to find ‘common ground’ on.”

Sure. It makes sense, it would mean those who use the roads most would be taxed the most. So it’s obviously too logical and too fair for politicians to agree to do it.


I drive a 2014 Ford Focus Electric and live in GA. I paid the $200 fee, I figured out that I pay about 75 cents per gallon in electric costs. With the new penalty it is closer to $1.75. So still cheaper than the $2.20 per gallon at the pump.

The Progressives only know how to raise taxes I wonder why the economy is tanking???????????

Conservatives never met a tax they liked, unless it’s on EV’s or solar.

I will keep driving my old polluting stinky diesel truck I was seriously thinking about a leaf

Mostly ignored, perhaps completely ignored, is the fact that most road repair costs come from heavy truck traffic. “Fair use” fees from vehicles of less than 10,000 pounds should be near zero.

Keep on truckin’ – by train!

I can see a tracking system where you pay on how much time on road you use.
Big brother time will come.

sad the America is basically falling apart – other states than California are much worse…

Raise gasoline tax by 3 cents and tax BEVs/PHEVs during registration $10 per year to go to highway trust fund.

As long as the state is giving $2500 (or whatever) rebate for EVs, it is schizophrenic to then take some back per year for road fees. If the state wishes to encourage EV adoption then it should do so whole heartedly. The ‘pay their fair share’ argument is pure political sugar coating.

Long term (once we get EVs up to 25% or more of the total auto population), some sort of miles/weight based calculation seems to make sense, but doing so now seems vastly premature.

Taxing carbon is what we need to do to wean ourselves off fossil fuels, so increasing the gas tax (or even better creating a direct carbon tax) is the right thing to do for the next decade. Personally, I think CA should double the current gas tax immeditately, with a schedule for it to quadruple in the next 10 years (or add a direct CO2 tax which would result in the same amount, but also tax other polluters).

Short term, revenue from the carbon cap and trade program is supposed to be going to road maintenance, as this is the first year that gasoline CO2 is paying into the cap & trade program.

It is simple, they are not paying their fair share of hway gas taxes. Record the miles EV drivers do in a year, and then send them a tax bill. No big deal.

But recording the miles is not simple. And it is kind of an invasion of privacy.

Not in states that require annual safety inspections – the inspection stations report pass/fail, I think, so it would be no big deal to throw in the odometer reading.

As I said earlier there are more pressing issues. Speeders and overweight semis, speeding semis cause more accidents and road damage. EVs are not an issue compared to the above. One of the states I lived in did not pay the deputies for court time. That may be true in other states also. However those deputies should be paid. Stopping speeding stops accidents from happening.
The other issue was an accident and the gas exploding starting a forest fire. EVs do not explode. EVs do not have very hot exhaust. I have heard in CO that very hot exhaust from a vehicle started forest fires. When I was growing up a constant topic was “Only you can prevent forest fires.” Today it is always lightning that starts the fires. Maybe if the forests were very green there would be less lightning fires.

For now, just charge a $100 fee annual road use fee for plug-in cars at time of registration. It is very simple to do and will bring in money from plug-in cars.

Hold on. EVS are being blamed for shortfall in revenues? I don’t think so. If 150,000 EVS were ICE vehicles, that’s conservatively only $36 million loss in revenues (assuming average 24 mpg for a new vehicle, 12,000 miles driven/yr, 500 gals/yr, $0.49/gal gas tax, and $245/yr/vehicle). And that is conservative because I assume the 150,000 EV number includes Chevy Volts, which use some gasoline and so those owners pay some into the gas tax. So the $5 billion shortfall is not even remotely due to EVs.

The article states that a bunch of things are being blamed for the shortfalls – hybrids, plug-ins of all types, increase in more efficient ICEs, etc. As you can see in the above blog post, Jay Cole emphasized the EV provision, since this is “”, after all… 😉

Am I the only one that finds it hugely ironic that the state approved a rebate of $2500 per EV on the road but is now complaining that they are losing money and need to tax EVs? I know that we are talking about two different buckets of money here, but all of this revenue came from tax dollars in the first place!

Over the year the revenues fromthe gas tax have been consistantly raided for who knows what. The money HAS been there and should have been applied to infrastructure maintainance. Smooth roads benefit all drivers, so all drivers should pay for them. It is not a powertrain issue. HOWEVER, to deal with CO2 and green house gas emissions, additional incentive needs to be given electric powertrains to encourage the adoption of clean technology. I still would like to see some respect paid to those who invest their time and money to develop personal prototype EVS. The prize is survival, not merely monetary survival,and sustainability. Bureaucrats need to keep their eyes on the prize and their hands on the coffers and staunch the re- appropriation of highway funds. Note how no one is divulging the income from bridge tolls?

I see that we have over 26 million vehicles licensed in California. If the state gas tax was dropped for all all cars and, in exchange, charge $50 per vehicle per year then the state would generate $1.3 billion in revenues, which amounts to a little over 100 gallons per year in tax exquivalents. Even @ 15 mpg, that seems to be more money than the state would get now. So, any idea of charging $200/yr would be ridiculous. But, we are talking about the govenrment. Only big gas and gas-based car makers and repair shops would like the $200/yr charge.

If there sooooooo many EV cars that it makes a difference, how about a $.001 kwh to go to the roads…